Dinsmore

someone trained in protecting

I don't know that I've ever seen a cop protecting anything other than a storefront

A team of a nurse or social worker + cop is the alternative to (generally) 2 cops. Whatever the funding mechanism behind the doors, you're switching out a cop for an alternative person, which is exactly what the defund movement has always been asking for. See some quotes below:

https://defundthepolice.org/alternatives-to-police-services/

The police service is a dangerous option for people experiencing a mental health crisis—but for many, it’s the only option. By defunding the police, significant resources can be reallocated to create a new community emergency services to support the mental health needs of our vulnerable community members. Teams trained in de-escalation and who root their work in community-informed practices could provide crisis support and care.

...

One common refrain in opposition to defunding the police assumes that our society will not be able to effectively respond to violent crime. But we have to remember that police do not prevent violence. In most incidents of violent crime, police are responding to a crime that has already taken place. When this happens, what we need from police is a service that will investigate the crime, and perhaps prevent such crimes from occurring in future.

Policing is ill-equipped to suit these needs. When victims are not the right kinds of victims, police have utterly failed, and at times refused to take the threat seriously. Why would we rely on an institution that has consistently proven that it is rife with systemic anti-Blackness and other forms of discrimination that result in certain communities being deemed unworthy of support? Instead of relying on police, we could rely on investigators from other sectors to carry out investigations. Social workers, sociologists, forensic scientists, doctors, researchers, and other well-trained individuals to fulfill our needs when violent crimes take place.

...

If we were to defund the police, we could create new investigative services where diverse teams of researchers and investigators, with a mix of scientific, public health and sociological expertise are able to attend to our investigative needs without the inherent anti-Blackness with which the police services approach our unsolved cases. Additionally, we could put money into programs attending to the food security and housing security needs of people living in precarity, to reduce the likelihood that desperate people unable to have their basic needs met would resort to the extraordinary step of attempting to meet their needs through theft.

Yoo a lot of nostalgia for the Cybiko! My mom wouldn't let me get a gameboy but my sister managed to find one of these somewhere. That was my only way to do handheld gaming for years! The games sucked but it was better than homework =)

https://tacticaltransition.com/product/ar-15-finishing-kit-rainbow-pvd-coated/

It likely won't be done at scale, but let's say you are wildly successful and are now in line for a high-value position, where vetting is common. Might look pretty bad if you fabricated your whole thesis. Recently, Bill Ackman basically bullied several schools into firing their head administrators on the pretense of not citing sources correctly in their thesis papers.

I'm not the one downvoting you, but I think this is where you might lose me - I agree that people will buy housing and rent it out if they can make a profit, and we've had landlords doing that basically forever. But if the government gets involved and owners sell, I don't see how home ownership can be more unaffordable. Basically we have a hugely constrained supply of housing. If, say, there were 50 skyscrapers full of apartments that went up overnight in San Francisco that charged $1000/month, rents would have to go down everywhere else because there would be the introduction of so much supply that nobody would pay more than that cost (because that's the alternative to where they're living now). Obviously that's a fantasy scenario, but the various governments (city, state, and fed) all are not doing anything to move towards that goal, which would create supply equal to demand. If current landlords sell, then that would drive prices further down, not up - you're literally increasing the supply again, and also because they will be competing against each other to sell, it should drive down prices for those homes as well.

I'm no linux expert, but I think that issues like that are pretty common with a flash boot - based on BIOS boot sequences or similar issues, the drive likely doesn't have as many permissions or permissions in the right order as a ssd would. As an intermediary step, you could try partitioning your drive first then doing a full install on a small partition.

Yeah, even 3d printed frames are even "good enough" for occasional use, especially if you buy all the other internals elsewhere, especially the slide/barrel, which are not covered at all by this tax (or by any other law in CA that I'm aware of, other than threaded barrels for pistols).

So one of the most common handguns is the Glock 19, which can be found pretty easily for between $500 and $600 in any gun store. I have strong doubts that an extra $55-66 per gun is going to fundamentally reduce the amount of guns in circulation. The person who buys a single gun isn't going to not buy the gun, and hobbyists who have a lot of disposable income won't stop buying new stuff, but will grumble a lot.

Anyone with nefarious intentions (cartels, etc.) would just buy in Nevada, Arizona, or other states anyways, where there aren't as many restrictions on firearms. If you ever see crime photos of people with glocks, it's pretty common to see 30-round magazines, which have been unable to be purchased in CA for years, showing that these guns and magazines are all coming from out of state to begin with.

Yeah, it can be very exhausting to manage your manager.

Yeah, sorry, at this point, I don't know what you're trying to say. I think we're both in agreement that this cop is an idiot and should not have his gun out, right?

I've only been trying to tell you that your question of "why he didn't demount the flashlight" is not really how it works.

Why would you = removing a WML. This guy is clearly a super huge idiot if that's what he was trying to do. I would think that this is super far from SOP, which should be to use his flashlight since he's surrounded by 999 other cops, this guy did not need his gun out at all.